On Apr 30, 7:40 am, "Chess One" <OneCh...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >> > Of course, that detail has little to do with anything,
> >> > and does not resurrect the Evans mythology (of
> >> > someone bravely takes on a corrupt establishment) that
> >> > Parr has been assigned with promulgating.
>
> >> Who else has bravely done so? There are few truly independent voices.
The
> >> inverse of Larry Evans is Jerry Hanken, eg.
>
> > Larry Parr has indeed promulgated the fiction that
> > Larry Evans is an "independent" voice. Well, while
> > he may well be independent of the folks who run
> > the show at the USCF, he is far from a truly
> > independent thinker. Many of the stories I've seen
> > were merely parroted or borrowed from others, with
> > apparently zero critical examination on LE's part.
>
> This may or may not have significance; after all, is Evans writing for
> people who already know some things so that he records his own comments
> along with theirs in order to substantiate an issue?
No. Mr. Evans rarely "substantiates". In fact, the
main reason people are aware that he is merely
*parroting* is that there is nothing added, nothing
considered, nothing but a parrot and his cracker.
We noticed this at least as early as 1974-5, back
when a certain Chess Lies article was swallowed
whole, ants and all. The poor fellow did not even
bother with thinking about a ludicrous claim; he
seemed almost /eager/ to be a parrot.
An article by Taylor Kingston happened upon
one instance of this *uncritical* parroting of what
Mr. Evans thinks may "fit" into his biased fantasy
world. But no doubt it would be easier to locate
the stuff by EW, who stumbles upon such things
whilst correcting misspellings, as all good pedants
must, by their very nature.
> Being 'independent' is
> no virtue if what you are describing is common to other observers
My point had nothing to do with the *virtues* of
independent thinking; I merely observed the fact
that a parrot is certainly not truly independent. If
Mr. Evans carefully considered before he parroted,
that would be acceptable, though even here, "his"
ideas are not emerging independently of others
inside his small circle of alike-thinkers. This
think-alike business is what allows wrong-headed
thinking to go unchecked. It reminds me of the
dregs who surrounded Bobby Fischer, while he
was ranting and raving about Jews and Russian
cheaters and how he was a, if not the, chess god.
> It must be particularly galling for Winter to have to deal with 'hack'
> Keene, since Winter has only tittle-tattle from those who feed it to
him,
> while Keene actually was behind the Wall and smuggling out stuff on what
it
> was really like from first hand knowledge, and also the samizdat of
other
> personal witness to the /systemic/ corruption of the SU.
Systemic corruption of the SU, you say? I keep
reading about such things, and nowadays the
focus has turned to /China/. What I find interesting
is the "familiar" feel these stories... the way they
remind me of home. Yeah, that's right my boy,
right here in the good old U.S. of A. I am often
reminded of a certain FBI chief, who told all his
fellow Americans that there was "no such thing
as organized crime"-- things like that. Not that
anyone needs to travel so far back in time, oh no!
I just happen to like that example.
Please take off that holier-than-thou cape-- it's
not even your color!
> Larry Evans also engaged the Soviet chess machine, and therefore is
guilty
> of the same crime as Keene; essentially neither of them bought into any
> propaganda whether it was issued from East or West
Wrong.
> My personal understanding of the issue is that he apologised to Judit,
who
> <emphasis> accepted that apology.
It is not enough. The entire chess world was
humiliated by this. Cheating is bad for chess,
just as it is bad for baseball, for instance. It is
also bad for chess when faves are allowed to
cheat, and afterward protected by apologists
who spin the facts.
If there is one thing you take away from this
post, let it be this: a writer who throws his
integrity out the window in favor of personal
bias, is just a hack. You can't allow these
agendas to take over and run your whole life!
So, when a camera re****ts that the pitches are
moving at 96 mph, if you hear the commentator
ranting that there is something "wrong" with the
camera because Nolan Ryan is really a 110 mph
pitcher, you can safely assume he is a nutter.
Especially when the same camera re****ts the
same numbers for several other pitchers, in the
same game, and the hack commentator says
it is working correctly /for them/.
-- help bot
|
